Tend to agree, the biggest problem I have is when I see everything compared to the "real world" and the need to define in terms of this. I dont think its a valid point or really even worth a lot of effort. If I want to talk to my friends I will call them, go see them or whatever. Same for remote viewing, i will get them to use some real time video app on a smart phone.

Is astral projection real or not, back to the start. If you have an experience of astral travel or lucid dream and it leaves a memory then it is real in one sense, just the same as a thought that causes pleasure or pain. A painful thought is no less real that hitting you finger with a hammer.

Do you interact with the material world in astral travel, I think that is the question. While this is interesting so what if you do, I am more interested in exploring my mind and lucid dreaming or astral travel is a tool to be honed for this purpose. Lol - all my opinion

Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

I'd also like to add that the question in this topic is fine. We all know too well what is implied by "astral projection." It is a belief-centric term. It assumes that we have an astral body that can travel in astral realms, apparently objectively real planes of existence, and populated by discarnate entities.

It's a baseless interpretation that also alludes to the existence of an eternal soul, that we are immortal, the afterlife is true, and other ideas which usually stem from, or are supported by, religion.

Again, do I think it's real? No. I think versions of this concept are imagined by people while they are awake and then mentally generated to the delight of practitioners of hybrid states of dream consciousness. Astral projection is no more than lucid dreaming taken to be something else. Your mind is responsible for the wonderful environments you see in lucid dreams. Credit should be given where its due in my opinion. There is no reason to underestimate the brain in all its complexity.

That's it!

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Until proven otherwise The Astral Plane doesn't exist.Imagine if it did though?! This Earth and Waking Life is hard enough. Imagine having to deal with Astral Beings! What a head-ache that would be! I didn't sign up for this when I was sprouted into existence!!! (I'm being sarcastic, but I am also a lucid dreamer, and I'll joke with my Dream Characters about that! See what they say? No matter how intelligent and sentient and aware they are with personality, I still think they are miraculous manifestations of my mind. Not astral beings and I am not 'astral projecting'.)

It's starting to make logical sense to me despite scientific proof.Without scientific proof, lets use logic and imagine if it actually WAS possible? It would upset the balance of the universe wouldn't it?

If it was possible to interact with another reality and influence it, it would be a two way street.I don't see any evidence of other dimensional beings influencing this reality except in dreams.That's too convenient and coincidental and leads me to believe it is all in our head.... our wonderful and amazing, 'uncharted minds' of a head.

But I am a curious child and that is the way all scientific approaches should be. I would love to hear either proof or some other logical reasoning behind this. (I find this fun......) It's a great conversation.

Agree. It's like the existence of God. We have no way of proving and have no way of disproving it, so I just say ''I don't know''. The problem with metaphysical discussions is that is hard to find evidence or maybe impossible (I don't like to use this word, so, the word maybe is important). Metaphysical arguments like ''the astral world exists'' could be beyond the human frame of observation, so there always uncertainty.

He could go like all day discussing the philosophical issue ^^ Better to create a new topic. This is in the realm of Epistemology, Methaphysics, etc.

LucidLink wrote:Someone said it's not real Intill science proves it, WHAT? I don't see any science experiment disproving it, so saying it's not real just because it hasn't been proven by science is pure ignorance.

It's not ignorance, it's the burden of proof.

In a nutshell, if someone makes a claim "X exists", or "Y is actually possible", they have to back it up with proof. If they can't, the claim is generally dismissed.

It's not up to the skeptic to disprove anything, it's up to the claim-maker to prove their claims.

LucidLink wrote:Someone said it's not real Intill science proves it, WHAT? I don't see any science experiment disproving it, so saying it's not real just because it hasn't been proven by science is pure ignorance.

It's not ignorance, it's the burden of proof.

In a nutshell, if someone makes a claim "X exists", or "Y is actually possible", they have to back it up with proof. If they can't, the claim is generally dismissed.

It's not up to the skeptic to disprove anything, it's up to the claim-maker to prove their claims.

You call it "burden of truth", I call it ignorance.

Because as I said in my last post, people thought lucid dreaming wasn't real intill science eventually proved it. But lucid dreaming was real before science proved it. No proof doesn't mean it's not real, it means we need to find some proof before we can say one way or the other.

You should read Carl Popper. He argues that in science, nothing can be proved true, but it can be proved false.If you have a scientific argument that is not refuted by any evidence, is not certaint that it's true, is only provisionally accepted.

We have no strong evidence of Astral Projection, but is a logical mistake to say is not real, just because we have no proof

The burden of proof is not ignorance, it is actually very important. Before I get to why that is, I'd like to mention that Karl Popper (with a "K") was a verificationist himself as much as he would like to describe himself as a critic of verificationism itself, and, he is, after all, associated with logical positivism.

The burden of proof is important because if we didn't have it, any Joe would be claiming all sorts. I'll tell you what is ignorance: to believe in astral projection without evidence. In fact, to believe in anything without evidence. You might as well believe in unicorns, fairies, Jack Frost, the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Apollo, Neptune etc. just because, despite these things being highly improbable, they have not been disproved!

Things don't work like that in science. In fact, in a court of law, you make a claim... you have the burden of proof. The onus is on you to back up your story. You don't get to say, "I can't prove that I saw Elvis but you can't prove that I didn't either," or, "I saw Michael Jackson fiddling with kiddies, I can't prove it but you can't disprove it either." A judicial system that dared to take such statements at face value would be a derisory one.

On lucid dreaming being frowned upon. Science didn't actually dismiss the idea. Lucid dreaming is now an established fact and this came about via experimentation. Scientists also used to think that the universe was static, eternal, and only the Milky Way existed, until, of course, Einstein, Hubble, and others, came along and changed the picture (and it only got better with improved technology such as greater telescopes). The observable universe contains billions of galaxies and is not static, it is expanding.

Science makes progress and scientists are humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers - but they are certainly doing their best to get them. Science has also studied the brain and measured activity against levels of reported consciousness and its conclusions make it highly unlikely that vitalism holds any water. What is said about the acceptance of lucid dreaming cannot be said for spirits controlling bodies or the existence of astral planes. Some people try to use the TV analogy with electricity and all. But electricity is something observable and measurable and thus part of the physical world. In the brain, no self or spiritual life force is found.

Some say it is because it is non-physical and therefore lies outside our scientific scope. This, too, is nonsense. If you are going to claim that a supernatural life force controls physical bodies then it has to interact with physical systems, thus being detectable, and would have to be physical by default - otherwise how else could it possibly interact with the physical universe? Scientists, with technology, can detect sound frequencies that are beyond the range of human hearing and yet cannot detect a soul essence that grossly moves physical bodies? Doesn't make much sense...

Moreover, the soul concept is a non-sequitur. If you are going to say that we are conscious because we have souls you are not really presenting a solution. One can then pose the question: How or why is this soul conscious? Moreover, where is it?

Lucid dreaming can be easily proved. The same cannot be said for the existence of a spiritual plane...

You see, science does not have dogmas, it is humble enough to doubt its own theories, to test things, and make observations via experimentation. As Lawrence Krauss put it:

"Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key principles:(1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one's theoretical models."

Now, I will explain why the agnostic position is weak when it comes to astral projection, spirits, God, and other religious tripe. None of the things aforementioned are 50-50 in probability/improbability (which would make agnosticism a respectable position to have on such matters). They are, in fact, highly improbable as science has given them the benefit of the doubt and has instead gathered enough evidence weighing against them. If you are going to be an agnostic about astral projection and God, you really have not done your homework on their improbability. You have not checked out the facts that make them extremely infeasible. Worse, you would also have to be as agnostic about unicorns if you adopt such position.

Ignorance is believing in something because you fancy the idea and care not for evidence. You wake someone during the REM phase and they will remember vivid dreams. You wake someone in delta and they will remember nothing - and they are very likely to be irritated and confused. Sometimes they need a few seconds or even a few minutes before they can even muster a polite, "Let me gather my thoughts," or, "Let me compose myself." The latter is very accurate and this reflects in brain activity. The mental faculties have to be built in the moment when one rises from deep sleep in order to produce the epiphenomenal consciousness.

We know subjectivity does arise from non-conscious matter, the puzzle is how as we probe brain complexity. It is very likely, as John Searle once made me think, that consciousness is like the property of being wet in water. Water feels wet but its atomic constituents are not. wet is an illusion and wet certainly does not last forever. Water can evaporate or freeze out. Chemical compositions change and illusions can cease to be.

Consciousness is a gap that science may fill in due time. Meanwhile, people who don't understand the burden of proof and provide no evidentiary substance have no right to fill it with whatever they please by word of mouth and pass their claims as truisms.

I don't believe in spirits, ghosts or astral projection just like I don't believe in unicorns. There is no reason for me to believe in such things. Until you have anything that is scientifically strong, which can surpass the overwhelming evidence for physicalism and our autonomic bodies, we will remain in this sceptical position. You may be open-minded but don't let your brains fall out.

I'd also like to add that science, when it comes to getting to the bottom of things, isn't about beliefs, opinions, or pure a priori deductions alone. These are not relevant/sufficient to form a sound conclusion. The statistics here do very little towards that goal.

This is a science forum. That's all.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."